SpeedFreek's Page

More from SpeedFreek

Forum Posts

Comments

Posted on: Origins of the Universe, Big Bang or No Bang.
at 11/25/2009 8:46pm

Harry, you probably won't understand this, but your interpretation of the data is misconceived.

I have read quite a ... more(+)

Harry, you probably won't understand this, but your interpretation of the data is misconceived.

I have read quite a lot about the evolution of galactic clusters and galactic collisions, I have read about galactic jets, too - the most energetic jets yet observed reach only hundreds of thousands of light-years at best, as far as I am aware. They have an incredibly low density, lower than the interstellar medium! This is because they sweep the interstellar medium out of the way and in front of them it forms into a "bow shock". The jet loses energy as it has to force its way through the accumulating gas and dust. With the densities and scales involved, you might get a few stars out of the accumulated interstellar medium.

But when it comes to the difference between galaxies, local clusters and superclusters, I don't think you quite appreciate the scales involved. close(-)

Posted on: Origins of the Universe, Big Bang or No Bang.
at 11/25/2009 2:28pm

So, are all the superclusters becoming closer together, over time? Is the universe shrinking? (crackpot theory)

Or is ... more(+)

harrycostas wrote:Hello Speadfreek

I do not know where you get your information from.

The super clusters actually do cluster. Its one of the basic laws of cosmology.

So, are all the superclusters becoming closer together, over time? Is the universe shrinking? (crackpot theory)

Or is a supercluster on the other side of the universe apparently receding due to the expansion of the universe? (mainstream theory)

If you think the former, you will have to provide the source of your information, as it flies in the face of modern cosmological theory. Of course, some superclusters might merge if they are close enough to each other, but on average the distance between supeclusters is increasing across the universe.

If you agree that a supercluster on the other side of the universe is not apparently moving towards us, what is your point about clustering? You always seem to imply it precludes the expansion of the universe and the only way for that to happen would be if the whole universe were clustering up, i.e. everything was getting closer together at the largest scales.

Either we are talking about different things, or I don't know what you are talking about, or you don't know what you are talking about. But rest assured, I know what I am talking about!

 close(-)

Posted on: a question about neutron starts
at 11/24/2009 8:32pm

. An interesting read, but I'm not sure about the conclusion! more(+)

Flatland wrote:Wouldn't that "thimble" of neutron star begin to rapidly expand as there is no longer sufficient gravity to hold it together?

Here is a discussion about this subject I was involved in on another forum. An interesting read, but I'm not sure about the conclusion! close(-)

Posted on: Origins of the Universe, Big Bang or No Bang.
at 11/24/2009 7:43pm

Let's address this one thing specifically. The clustering does not go on at the largest scales. Galaxies form into ... more(+)

harrycostas wrote:These larger clusters, cluster once again and form a larger cluster a super cluster and it goes on.

This is reality that can be observed.

Let's address this one thing specifically. The clustering does not go on at the largest scales. Galaxies form into local clusters and local clusters can form into superclusters, but all the superclusters in the universe are not themselves clustering together, i.e. getting closer to each other. If they were, it would mean the universe was collapsing.

The universe is not collapsing, it flies in the face of mainstream cosmology which has the supercluster our Milky-Way is part of (the Virgo cluster) receding from a cluster on the other side of the universe, due to the expansion of the universe.

Do you not agree, Harry? If not, why not? Did you not understand those 100's of BBT papers you read? close(-)

Posted on: The size of space.
at 11/23/2009 8:03pm

. more(+)

TheGreatVoid wrote:You seem to be missing MY point. All those things you describe are related to subatomic carrier particles, you know, very tiny things that exist IN SPACE (NOTHING)!

Theory has it that there is no such thing as empty space, due to the quantum foam. close(-)

This user has not commented on any articles or features...